REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.4283  OF 2019

(Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No.2348 of 2018)

M/s Trimex Sands Pvt. Limited  & Anr.    ….Appellant(s)

VERSUS

Union of India & Ors.       ….Respondent(s)

J U D G M E N T

Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal is directed against the final

judgment and  order  dated  09.11.2017  passed  by

the High Court of Delhi at New  Delhi in  Writ

Petition (C) No.5734 of 2016 whereby the High

Court disposed of the said  writ petition filed by

respondent No.3 herein (original writ petitioner

before the  High  Court) against respondent  Nos.1

1

and 2 herein (Union of India and another) and set

aside the order dated 30.06.2016(notified on

06.07.2016).

3. Heard learned counsel on IA No.16352 of

2018.  

4. This  is  an application made by the Union of

India through the Under Secretary, Ministry of

Mines for appropriate directions and for disposal of

the appeal.  

5. A  few facts need mention  for the disposal  of

the said application so also the appeal, which

involves a short point.

6. By impugned order, the High Court disposed of

writ  petition No.5734 of  2016 filed by respondent

No.3 herein (original writ petitioner before the High

Court) against respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein

(Union of India and another).

7. The challenge in the said writ petition was to

an order dated 30.06.2016 (notified on 06.07.2016)

2

issued by the respondents of the writ petition, i.e.,

Union of India through its concerned Ministry.

8. It is  not in  dispute that the  High  Court  by

impugned order dated 09.11.2017 disposed of the

writ petition and set aside the order dated

30.06.2016 which was impugned in the writ petition

on the basis of statement  made by the learned

counsel appearing for the Union of India.

9. In other words, the High Court did not

consider necessary to decide the writ petition on the

merits of the controversy in the light of the

statement made by the learned counsel, who

appeared  for the Union of India.   It is  clear  from

Paras 9 and 10 of the impugned order quoted infra:

“9. In  view of  his  aforesaid  statement, the impugned order dated 30.06.2016 notified on 06.07.2016 is set aside.   The respondents would take further steps to process the grant of Exploration License pursuant to the order dated 05.04.2011 in accordance with law.

10. It is clarified that this Court has not expressed an  opinion  on the  merits  of the

3

dispute between the  parties and the above order has been passed solely on the basis of the statement made on behalf of respondents.”

10. It is this order, which is now impugned by the

appellant by filing the present special leave to

appeal.  Since the appellants were not parties to the

writ petition,  they sought  leave to  file the present

special leave to appeal to question the legality and

correctness  of the impugned order in the  present

appeal.

11. It is brought to the notice of the Court in the

application under consideration (IA No.16352/2018)

that the  Union of India (respondents of the  writ

petition) have filed  a review petition (103/2018) in

the High Court against the impugned order dated

09.11.2017 passed in   writ petition No.5734/2016,

which is now the subject  matter of the present

special leave to appeal, praying therein to recall the

4

order dated 09.11.2017. The review petition is

pending.

12. During the course of submissions, it has also

been pointed out that in another batch of petitions

led by W.P. No.7537 of 2018  (M/s Standard

Metalloys Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India),  the High

Court passed a detailed order on 06.02.2019 and

set aside the impugned order dated 30.06.2016 on

merits.   Be that as it may, we need not enter into

any other aspect of the matter because herein, the

recall  is sought essentially on the ground that an

incorrect statement was made by the learned

counsel, who appeared for the Union of India in the

said writ petition, which led for its disposal wrongly.

It is stated therein that the statement was made by

the learned counsel on the basis of incorrect/wrong

briefing made to him by the concerned official.

13. A prayer is, therefore, made that because

during the pendency of the appeal and subsequent

5

to  passing  of the impugned  order, certain events

have also taken place, therefore, this appeal can be

disposed of accordingly keeping in view the

subsequent events which have occurred.

14. Though the learned counsel for the parties and

specially the learned  counsel for the  original  writ

petitioner (respondent No.3 herein) opposed the

application under consideration and urged the

issues  arising in the  writ  petition  on  merits,  but

having heard the learned counsel for the parties and

on perusal of the entire record of the case, we are

inclined to allow this appeal, set aside the impugned

order and restore Writ Petition No.5734 of 2016 to

its  original  number  before the  High  Court for its

fresh disposal in accordance with law on merits.

15. In our  opinion,  keeping in  view the  grounds

now raised by the Union of  India and further the

fact that the  High  Court  did  not  decide the  writ

petition on merits but disposed it of on the

6

statement made by the learned counsel for the

Union of India, which was based on incorrect

briefing, we consider it just and proper and in the

interest  of  all the parties  concerned that the writ

petition  is  heard afresh and  is  disposed of  on  its

merits in accordance with law by the High Court.

16. In view of the foregoing discussion, the

application made by the Union of India (IA

No.163521 of 2018) is allowed.   As a consequence,

the appeal succeeds and is accordingly allowed.

The impugned order is set aside.   The writ petition

(No.5734 of 2016) filed by respondent No.3 herein

before the  High  Court, out of which this appeal

arises, is restored to its original number before the

High Court.

17. In the light  of  this  order, the review petition

filed  by the  Union  of India (No.103/2018)  stands

disposed of.

7

18. All the  parties are granted liberty to  amend

their respective pleadings before the High Court in

the aforementioned writ petition to enable the High

Court  to dispose of the writ  petition on merits  in

accordance with law.  

19. We, however, make it clear that we have not

examined the case of the parties on merits having

formed an opinion to remand the case to the High

Court on the grounds mentioned above and,

therefore, the High Court will decide the writ

petition without being influenced by any

observations made this Court on merit in this order.

           ………...................................J. [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE]                                     ....……..................................J.

       [DINESH MAHESHWARI]

New Delhi; April 25, 2019.

8